Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
constitutional carry challenge
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Catt57" data-source="post: 3285914" data-attributes="member: 34578"><p>TLDR: </p><p>AFTER HEARING ARGUMENT FROM BOTH SIDES THE COURT RULES AS FOLLOWS: ....<span style="font-size: 15px">PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION IS OVERRULED. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: 15px"></span></p><p>Source: <a href="http://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=oklahoma&number=CJ-2019-5628&cmid=3816991" target="_blank">http://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=oklahoma&number=CJ-2019-5628&cmid=3816991</a></p><p></p><p>ANDREWS: PLAINTIFF APPEARS BY AND THROUGH COUNSEL MELANIE RUGHANI AND JORDAN SESSLER, DEFENDANT APPEARS BY AND THROUGH COUNSEL RANDALL YATES AND MITHUN MANSINGHANI: CASE COMES ON FOR PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION, REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED BRIEFING AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT: AFTER HEARING ARGUMENT FROM BOTH SIDES THE COURT RULES AS FOLLOWS:</p><p>1. THIS LAWSUIT DOES NOT ADDRESS THE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES IN HB 2597, BUT DOES CHALLENGE THE PROCESS BY WHICH IT WAS ENACTED.</p><p>2. IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THIS LEGISLATION IS EITHER MISLEADING OR PROVISION IN THE ACT ARE SO UNRELATED THAT THE LAW WOULD BE FACED WITH AN UNPALATABLE ALL-OR-NOTHING CHOICE.</p><p>3. THE PROVISIONS OF HB 2597 ARE INCIDENTAL TO ACCOMPLISHING THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE ENACTMENT. THEY ALL FORM PARTS OF AN INTEGRATED WHOLE.</p><p>4. THE SINGLE SUBJECT RULE DOES NOT CONFER SUBSTANTIVE, INDIVIDUAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, BUT SIMPLY SETS FORTH A PROCEDURE FOR THE LEGISLATURE TO FOLLOW. WHAT IS REQUIRED IS A VIOLATION AN INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT-THE FREEDOM TO ACT IN SOME SORT OF WAY-NOT MERELY A PROCEDURAL VIOLATION.</p><p>ACCORDINGLY, PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE, BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, THAT THEY WILL BE IRREPARABLY HARMED DURING THE PENDENCY OF THIS SUIT ABSENT AN INJUNCTION. PLAINTIFFS' ALLEGED HARMS ARE THEORETICAL OR SPECULATIVE. ACCORDINGLY, <span style="font-size: 15px">PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION IS OVERRULED. </span>COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT IS DIRECTED TO PREPARE AND CIRCULATE AN ORDER CONSISTENT WITH THE COURT'S RULING: COURT REPORTER SCOTT WILMETH PRESENT</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Catt57, post: 3285914, member: 34578"] TLDR: AFTER HEARING ARGUMENT FROM BOTH SIDES THE COURT RULES AS FOLLOWS: ....[SIZE=4]PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION IS OVERRULED. [/SIZE] Source: [URL]http://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=oklahoma&number=CJ-2019-5628&cmid=3816991[/URL] ANDREWS: PLAINTIFF APPEARS BY AND THROUGH COUNSEL MELANIE RUGHANI AND JORDAN SESSLER, DEFENDANT APPEARS BY AND THROUGH COUNSEL RANDALL YATES AND MITHUN MANSINGHANI: CASE COMES ON FOR PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION, REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED BRIEFING AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT: AFTER HEARING ARGUMENT FROM BOTH SIDES THE COURT RULES AS FOLLOWS: 1. THIS LAWSUIT DOES NOT ADDRESS THE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES IN HB 2597, BUT DOES CHALLENGE THE PROCESS BY WHICH IT WAS ENACTED. 2. IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THIS LEGISLATION IS EITHER MISLEADING OR PROVISION IN THE ACT ARE SO UNRELATED THAT THE LAW WOULD BE FACED WITH AN UNPALATABLE ALL-OR-NOTHING CHOICE. 3. THE PROVISIONS OF HB 2597 ARE INCIDENTAL TO ACCOMPLISHING THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE ENACTMENT. THEY ALL FORM PARTS OF AN INTEGRATED WHOLE. 4. THE SINGLE SUBJECT RULE DOES NOT CONFER SUBSTANTIVE, INDIVIDUAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, BUT SIMPLY SETS FORTH A PROCEDURE FOR THE LEGISLATURE TO FOLLOW. WHAT IS REQUIRED IS A VIOLATION AN INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT-THE FREEDOM TO ACT IN SOME SORT OF WAY-NOT MERELY A PROCEDURAL VIOLATION. ACCORDINGLY, PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE, BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, THAT THEY WILL BE IRREPARABLY HARMED DURING THE PENDENCY OF THIS SUIT ABSENT AN INJUNCTION. PLAINTIFFS' ALLEGED HARMS ARE THEORETICAL OR SPECULATIVE. ACCORDINGLY, [SIZE=4]PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION IS OVERRULED. [/SIZE]COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT IS DIRECTED TO PREPARE AND CIRCULATE AN ORDER CONSISTENT WITH THE COURT'S RULING: COURT REPORTER SCOTT WILMETH PRESENT [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
constitutional carry challenge
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom